Parents File Brown Act Nullification Lawsuit Against Santa Rosa City Schools
District’s Secret SELPA process faces court challenge.
A Sonoma County parent has filed a sweeping Brown Act nullification action against Santa Rosa City Schools (SRCS), alleging systemic violations of California’s open‑meeting laws and unlawful suppression of parent participation in special‑education governance. The case, Velasquez v. Santa Rosa City Schools (Case No. 26CV03168), was filed on May 13, 2026 in Sonoma County Superior Court and assigned to Judge Patrick Broderick, according to the docket.
The petition seeks no monetary damages, only declaratory and injunctive relief. As the petition states: “No monetary damages are sought. The relief sought is declaratory and injunctive only.”
View Lawsuit
A Fight for Transparency in Special Education Governance
Parents and Educators “Ignored, Excluded, and Managed Rather Than Heard”
Petitioner Jennifer Velasquez, a parent of a student with disabilities and a district‑selected member of the SELPA Planning Committee, filed the action “on behalf of the broader community of parents of students with disabilities” who, she argues, have been systematically shut out of the governance processes created to serve them.
The petition states: “These parents and educators have participated in every available public process. They have been ignored, excluded, and managed rather than heard.”
Legal Status of the SELPA CAC
A Statutory Advisory Body Subject to the Brown Act
The petition asserts that the SELPA Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is a legislative body under state law because:
It was created under Education Code §§ 56190–56194.
Its members were appointed by the SRCS Board of Education.
Under Government Code § 54952, any multimember body appointed by a governing board is subject to the Brown Act.
The petition quotes district policy itself: “Administrative Regulation 1220… explicitly listed Education Code sections 56190 through 56194 committees as subject to full Brown Act requirements.”
Alleged Defects in the SELPA Planning Process
Non‑Public Selection, Minimal Notice, and Exclusionary Timelines
The petition describes the SELPA Planning Committee as having been formed through an administrator‑controlled, non‑public process without board authorization. Key allegations include:
Notice was sent only to IEP households via ParentSquare.
No public notice or board‑approved criteria were used.
The application window was only four days, described as “functionally exclusionary.”
The district’s only public information night occurred on the same day the application window closed, meaning parents who attended were already too late.
The petition quotes: “Any parent who attended was already too late to apply.”
Brown Act Violations Alleged at CAC and Planning Meetings
Blocked Public Access and Improper Closed Sessions
The petition alleges multiple violations of Government Code § 54953, including:
On February 12, 2026, Executive Director John Fischer allegedly blocked microphone and chat access for parents before the CAC meeting began.
Four Planning Committee meetings (Jan. 22, Jan. 29, Feb. 5, Feb. 19) were falsely designated as closed sessions without any lawful exemption.
The petition states: “Four SELPA Planning Committee meetings… were falsely designated as closed sessions… violating Government Code sections 54953 and 54962.”
False Minutes and Suppressed Recordings
The petition further alleges:
Fischer filed false official minutes for Feb. 26 and Mar. 12 CAC meetings, despite no adoption vote ever occurring.
The district suppressed the March 12 recording and falsely claimed no such recording existed.
The petition quotes: “Petitioner possesses a recording… confirming no adoption vote occurred.” and “The district suppressed the March 12, 2026 CAC meeting recording… violating Government Code section 54953.5.”
Unauthorized Revision of Administrative Regulation 1220
A Major Policy Change Made Without a Board Vote
On April 2, 2026, AR 1220 was revised to remove the SELPA CAC from Brown Act coverage. The petition alleges:
No board meeting occurred on April 2.
No board vote authorized the revision.
Governance authority lies solely with the elected board under Education Code §§ 35010, 35160, 35161.
The petition states: “The revision is void as unauthorized.”
The revised AR 1220 was later placed on the April 8 agenda as an information item only, which the petition argues does not constitute authorization.
April 8, 2026 Board Actions Under Challenge
Adoption of Section B of the SELPA Local Plan
The petition seeks to nullify the Board’s April 8 vote adopting Section B of the SELPA Local Plan, citing:
Required Section A was never completed.
Public hearing notice was not posted for the required 15 days.
Spanish‑language notice contained a wrong city, wrong suite number, and wrong ZIP code, directing families to Modesto instead of Santa Rosa.
The Board Memorandum was drafted by Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, but presented as a staff recommendation without disclosure.
The CAC had issued a formal advisory report recommending the board NOT adopt the plan, which was not disclosed.
The petition quotes: “The Spanish-language notice directed families to Modesto, California instead of Santa Rosa…” and “This contradiction was not disclosed to the board.”
Cure and Correct Demand and District Inaction
Velasquez submitted a cure and correct demand on March 25, 2026. The district took no corrective action before the 30‑day deadline expired on April 24.
The petition states: “No written cure or correction was received. No corrective board action was taken.”
The lawsuit was filed within the statutory 15‑day window.
Relief Sought
The petition requests:
A writ of mandate requiring Brown Act compliance for all SELPA CAC and Planning Committee meetings.
Nullification of:
The April 8 adoption of Section B.
The April 2 revision to AR 1220.
Injunctions requiring:
Restored remote access.
Bilingual 72‑hour notice.
Public posting of recordings within five business days.
Correction of falsified minutes.
Reconstitution of the CAC through a lawful, 30‑day public process.
Attorneys’ fees under Gov. Code § 54960.5.
Case Status
According to the docket, the case is active, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for October 20, 2026 at 3:00 PM before Judge Broderick.